almost forgot to notify

Use this forum to post your experience with encounters with law enforcement, criminals, or other encounters as a result of your firearm or potential to be carrying one.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

dangerranger6100
Posts: 344
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 12:00 pm
Contact:

Re: almost forgot to notify

Post by dangerranger6100 »

TJW815 wrote:
JediSkipdogg wrote:
TJW815 wrote:Been hearing alot of he u responsive driver calls lately around here. Almost always turns out to be a heroin overdose.
General rule of thumb around me for someone unconscious/unresponsive is...

Vehicle = drunk
Apartment/Hotel = Heroin (occasion house, but very rare)
Public = Medical condition/heat stroke during summer
Wish it was that way around here. Apparently the draw of shoving a needle in ones arm is a strong one. It's getting bad around here. At least 2 calls a night for heroine overdose around here. I have my own opinions of how to handle the overdoses but it may be deemed as insensitive.
Yep, seems like it's heroin more often than not lately, wherever they are. I would assume a crime has occurred if someone is passed out behind the wheel not responding to sound.
User avatar
evan price
Forum Janitor
Forum Janitor
Posts: 9044
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: Westfield, Ohio

Re: almost forgot to notify

Post by evan price »

Living out in the country I see a couple of these every year. Car in drive in the grass and driver laid back snoring.
Ive been that guy on occaision, but due to crazy work schedules and sleep deprivation, not EtOH. Much better now with meds and cpap.
"20% accurate as usual, Morty."

Striking down evil with the mighty sword of teamwork and the hammer of not bickering!
Carpe Noctem- we get more done after 2 am than most people do all day.
User avatar
color of law
*** Banned ***
Posts: 3623
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 10:03 pm
Location: Cincinnati area

Re: almost forgot to notify

Post by color of law »

djthomas wrote:
color of law wrote:WOW!!!! you sound like JediSkipdogg. No 911 call for a crime in progress was made. It was a medical emergency call.
How do we know for 100% sure it's a medical emergency call? The call is that a male in a vehicle is unresponsive. He could be drunk (that's a crime and usually not a medical emergency), he could be a victim of a crime (and is the guy standing next to him somehow involved?), or yes it could be a genuine medical emergency. The first thing that happens at a call for service is a size up no matter what the complainant told the dispatcher. What is the situation, who are these people standing around, how are they involved, and what dangers exist and how do I mitigate them?
color of law wrote:A medical emergency does not fall into the Law enforcement purpose category. If it does please cite some case law.
Actually, it does. If you're looking for case law on the topic I'd suggest boning up on the community caretaking doctrine. Cady v. Dombrowski is a good place to start. Officers engaged in community caretaking functions can make stops and detentions without reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred as long as it's not a pretext for an investigative stop. Responding to an active medical emergency is very much a community caretaking function and thus a law enforcement purpose when the person involved is a law enforcement officer.

So now it's my turn to ask a question. Where in the notification law does it say that if you are the one who calls the police you do not need to notify?
"The call is that a male in a vehicle is unresponsive." This statement sounds like a medical situation to me.

And what part of "If a licensee is stopped for a law enforcement purpose" don't you understand? The person requesting the services of the cops is not the person being stopped for law enforcement purposes.

And no, I am not looking for anything. I made a statement that a medical emergency does not fall into the Law enforcement purpose category and if it does please cite some case law. It's clear that you have not done that. You need to read Cady v. Dombrowski. Unless you can show otherwise, Cady clearly has nothing to do with the subject matter being discussed here. The case deals with a warrantless search of a motor vehicle's trunk and the motor vehicle was in the custody of the police. So, you have no specific case law that supports your position.
So now it's my turn to ask a question. Where in the notification law does it say that if you are the one who calls the police you do not need to notify?
Are you serious? You are actually asking that question? This deserves another WOW.
Brian D.
Posts: 16229
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:42 pm
Location: SW Ohio

Re: almost forgot to notify

Post by Brian D. »

So....can we at least agree that due to all the "what ifs" we've discussed lo these last ten years, it's high time for the notification requirement to go bye-bye? And further, that this should be a focal point in discussions between OFCC, BFA, etc. and the OGA?
Quit worrying, hide your gun well, shut up, and CARRY that handgun!

********************************************************************************
1911 and Browning Hi Power Enthusianado.
User avatar
xracer
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 7:07 pm
Location: Akron

Re: almost forgot to notify

Post by xracer »

I can now see first hand, how it could under certain circumstances be easy to get sidetracked and forget to inform so I'm definitely in favor of at least reducing or removing the penalty for the infraction.
Keep your eyes on the road and the rubber side down.
User avatar
JustaShooter
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5800
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: almost forgot to notify

Post by JustaShooter »

First, notification needs to go away. Period.

Now that I have that out of the way, consider this:

It is within the duties of a law enforcement officer to question witnesses, correct? That would make it a law enforcement purpose, no? So, if you make a call, and when the responding LEO rolls up he begins asking you questions about the situation, is that not being stopped for a law enforcement purpose?

I could be wrong (as I have been on many occasions) but that's how I see it anyway.
Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

Want to become more active with OFCC and help fight for your rights? Click Here!
User avatar
color of law
*** Banned ***
Posts: 3623
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 10:03 pm
Location: Cincinnati area

Re: almost forgot to notify

Post by color of law »

Brian D. wrote:So....can we at least agree that due to all the "what ifs" we've discussed lo these last ten years, it's high time for the notification requirement to go bye-bye? And further, that this should be a focal point in discussions between OFCC, BFA, etc. and the OGA?
Agree...
User avatar
color of law
*** Banned ***
Posts: 3623
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 10:03 pm
Location: Cincinnati area

Re: almost forgot to notify

Post by color of law »

JustaShooter wrote:First, notification needs to go away. Period.

Now that I have that out of the way, consider this:

It is within the duties of a law enforcement officer to question witnesses, correct? That would make it a law enforcement purpose, no? So, if you make a call, and when the responding LEO rolls up he begins asking you questions about the situation, is that not being stopped for a law enforcement purpose?

I could be wrong (as I have been on many occasions) but that's how I see it anyway.
"If a licensee is stopped for a law enforcement purpose..." I really don't understand your logic. If I call the police to come to where I'm at to converse with him about whatever subject matter I called him for does not equate into a police officer stopping me for a law enforcement purpose.

It is your choice to inform as you see fit.
User avatar
djthomas
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am

Re: almost forgot to notify

Post by djthomas »

JustaShooter wrote:It is within the duties of a law enforcement officer to question witnesses, correct? That would make it a law enforcement purpose, no? So, if you make a call, and when the responding LEO rolls up he begins asking you questions about the situation, is that not being stopped for a law enforcement purpose?
Not just questioning witnesses. Responding to medical emergencies is a community caretaking function which, when carried out by law enforcement officers becomes a law enforcement purpose. A law enforcement officer performing a community caretaking function has some authority to stop and even detain people despite there being no suspicion of criminal activity afoot.

Hell, there's case law on making a traffic stop under the community caretaking doctrine to warn a driver that a baseball cap was about to blow out of his pickup bed. Does anybody really want to suggest that a police officer responding to a life or death medical emergency is less justified in stopping people than the officer who warns a motorist about his hat?

I think some might take the word "stopped" a bit too literally as in "was moving, was ordered to cease moving." If you're standing there minding your own business and a law enforcement officer comes up and starts talking business you have still been stopped. It may not rise to the level of a seizure in the fourth amendment context, but here's the thing. Failing to promptly inform ain't no traffic ticket. It's a six months in jail and lose your CHL violation. Complying with the law is easy and there's no penalty for notifying when it is not required.

Should notification go away? Absolutely. But until that time I don't think it's right for others to suggest that "hey, if you call 911 you're not required to notify." At best that is simplistic advice. At worst it's outright wrong.
Bama.45
Posts: 3025
Joined: Wed May 21, 2014 4:32 pm
Location: Warren county

Re: almost forgot to notify

Post by Bama.45 »

djthomas wrote:
JustaShooter wrote:It is within the duties of a law enforcement officer to question witnesses, correct? That would make it a law enforcement purpose, no? So, if you make a call, and when the responding LEO rolls up he begins asking you questions about the situation, is that not being stopped for a law enforcement purpose?
Not just questioning witnesses. Responding to medical emergencies is a community caretaking function which, when carried out by law enforcement officers becomes a law enforcement purpose. A law enforcement officer performing a community caretaking function has some authority to stop and even detain people despite there being no suspicion of criminal activity afoot.

Hell, there's case law on making a traffic stop under the community caretaking doctrine to warn a driver that a baseball cap was about to blow out of his pickup bed. Does anybody really want to suggest that a police officer responding to a life or death medical emergency is less justified in stopping people than the officer who warns a motorist about his hat?

I think some might take the word "stopped" a bit too literally as in "was moving, was ordered to cease moving." If you're standing there minding your own business and a law enforcement officer comes up and starts talking business you have still been stopped. It may not rise to the level of a seizure in the fourth amendment context, but here's the thing. Failing to promptly inform ain't no traffic ticket. It's a six months in jail and lose your CHL violation. Complying with the law is easy and there's no penalty for notifying when it is not required.

Should notification go away? Absolutely. But until that time I don't think it's right for others to suggest that "hey, if you call 911 you're not required to notify." At best that is simplistic advice. At worst it's outright wrong.

I agree with you... I think it needs to go away. But until it does I will CYA and inform... It takes 15 seconds and it is done... Not worth losing my CHL over and going to jail if I am wrong for not informing.
"Lord, make my hand fast and accurate.
Let my aim be true and my hand faster
than those who would seek to destroy me.
Grant me victory over my foes and those who wish to do harm to me and mine.
Let not my last thought be 'If I only had my gun."
And Lord, if today is truly the day you call me home
Let me die in a pile of empty brass."
Amen




U.S. Marines 01-07



~The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.~ Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
color of law
*** Banned ***
Posts: 3623
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 10:03 pm
Location: Cincinnati area

Re: almost forgot to notify

Post by color of law »

Why are you changing the subject matter of the thread? The cop did not STOP anybody to investigate anything.
djthomas wrote:Not just questioning witnesses. Responding to medical emergencies is a community caretaking function which, when carried out by law enforcement officers becomes a law enforcement purpose.
A law enforcement officer performing a community caretaking function has some authority to stop and even detain people despite there being no suspicion of criminal activity afoot.
Please provide some case law that supports that contention. What, you say there isn't any, I thought so. I suggest you read State v. Dunn, 131 Ohio St.3d 325, 2012-Ohio-1008. http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/do ... o-1008.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Specifically paragraphs 22 and 23.
{¶ 22} Thus, we hold that the community-caretaking/emergency-aid exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement allows police officers to stop a person to render aid if they reasonably believe that there is an immediate need for their assistance to protect life or prevent serious injury.

{¶ 23} In this case, officers received a dispatch regarding an allegedly armed and suicidal person with an imminent plan to kill himself upon reaching a certain destination. Given that stopping a person on the street is “considerably less intrusive than police entry into the home itself,” Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326, 336, 121 S.Ct. 946, 148 L.Ed.2d 838 (2001), the officers’ effecting a traffic stop to prevent Dunn from harming himself was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Thus, the community-caretaking/emergency-aid exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement allows police officers to stop a driver based on a dispatch that the driver is armed and plans to kill himself.
Your implication that “law enforcement officer performing a community caretaking function has some authority to stop and even detain people” is clearly erroneous. As the Ohio Supreme Court made clear, the so called caretaking function is very narrowly tailored.

In the interests of public safety and as part of what the Court has called “community caretaking function” the person making the 911 call is not the subject of the caretaking function.
djthomas wrote:Hell, there's case law on making a traffic stop under the community caretaking doctrine to warn a driver that a baseball cap was about to blow out of his pickup bed. Does anybody really want to suggest that a police officer responding to a life or death medical emergency is less justified in stopping people than the officer who warns a motorist about his hat?
Well, you started out being correct, then you blew it by retorting the police can stop everybody just because. See above, no they can't. The cops can try to make a consensual stop, but that stop requires consent.
djthomas wrote:I think some might take the word "stopped" a bit too literally as in "was moving, was ordered to cease moving." If you're standing there minding your own business and a law enforcement officer comes up and starts talking business you have still been stopped. It may not rise to the level of a seizure in the fourth amendment context, but here's the thing. Failing to promptly inform ain't no traffic ticket. It's a six months in jail and lose your CHL violation. Complying with the law is easy and there's no penalty for notifying when it is not required.
Again, you've got to be kidding. The term “stopped” (meaning being detained for a law enforcement purpose) means “stop” under its plain meaning.

The primary goal of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the legislature's intent in enacting the statute. Brooks v. Ohio State Univ. (1996), 111 Ohio App.3d 342, 349, 676 N.E.2d 162. The court must first look to the plain language of the statute itself to determine the legislative intent. State ex rel. Burrows v. Indus. Comm. (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 78, 81, 676 N.E.2d 519. Courts apply a statute as it is written when its meaning is unambiguous and definite. Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Akron, 109 Ohio St.3d 106, 2006-Ohio-954, 846 N.E.2d 478, ¶ 52, citing State ex rel. Savarese v. Buckeye Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 543, 545, 660 N.E.2d 463. An unambiguous statute must be applied in a manner consistent with the plain meaning of the statutory language. State ex rel. Burrows, 78 Ohio St.3d at 81, 676 N.E.2d 519.

Based on your above statement, you come across as one of those that believe that people should sacrifice their rights based on your erroneous interpretation of what the law actually says. Based on case law, Stopped means stopped, as in stopped for a law enforcement purposes. When I command a public servant to come to my location so s/he can deal with a situation, that command does not convert my order into me being stopped, under any circumstance.
djthomas wrote:Should notification go away? Absolutely. But until that time I don't think it's right for others to suggest that "hey, if you call 911 you're not required to notify." At best that is simplistic advice. At worst it's outright wrong.

I agree that notification needs to go away, but the rest of your statement is bull, however your free to believe whatever you want.

The one thing I learned many years ago is that a cop is the worst public servant to ask for legal advice.

There is nothing more to debate
User avatar
Cosmos
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 274
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:27 am
Location: SW Ohio

Re: almost forgot to notify

Post by Cosmos »

As others have said, notification needs to go away. Until it does, I personally choose to notify in most situations without giving Barney Fife cause to stuff me in the back of a cruiser whether legal or not.

1) It is a minor inconvenience in security theater
2) I don't have legal issues to fight in court with a lawyer
3) I get to keep my gun and CHL and not have to fight to get them back
4) Many cops do not know the law (or worse think they do)
5) Getting a lawyer costs money, getting a good lawyer costs a lot more
6) Getting booked, strip searched, and spending the weekend in jail with Bubba is not my idea of fun

Whether anyone chooses to notify or not is their own personal choice. I choose to abide by my own rules until the silliness of notification goes away.
NRA Benefactor
If the police are not present to stop a crime they are just armed historians.
A 1911 beats 9-1-1 every time.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity - Hanlon's razor
Post Reply